Evidence of meeting #27 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was insurance.
A video is available from Parliament.
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
I would say that there is a potential for much positive impact. As I mentioned before, the anchoring that can happen for newcomers would be a huge positive impact in terms of supporting families and bringing them together.
Prof. Arthur Sweetman
My view is in the closing part of my opening statement. This bill is well intentioned, but good intentions are not sufficient for good policy. I think that this bill could be beneficial, if it's well implemented and carefully thought through. It's all in the execution.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you. The time is up for Mr. El-Khoury.
We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to first acknowledge the witnesses who are joining us.
Mr. Sweetman, what you are saying is very interesting. I have been listening to you, and I see that a lot of work will need to be done concerning parameters for regulating foreign insurers. In that context, are we not putting the cart before the horse?
Shouldn't foreign insurers already be regulated? Shouldn't those parameters be established before this bill is adopted? Do you think a step is being skipped?
Prof. Arthur Sweetman
I don't know what you mean by “adopt the bill”, since you're only talking about passing it in the House. It needs to be proclaimed. I presume that prior to its being proclaimed, there would be appropriate background material and appropriate guidelines put in place—or I hope, at least. Rather than saying I assume, I hope and I would advocate for proper guidelines being put in place before the bill is proclaimed.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
The bill will not be adopted right away, but what you are telling me is that upstream work needs to be done before the bill is adopted. What you just told me is very thought-provoking, and you answered my question.
Mr. Ramos, the length of stay provided by that super visa will help apply for permanent residence in better conditions. That is at least what we are being told. However, the bill stipulates that it must be ensured that the family member will leave Canada voluntarily after their visit.
Is that a case of dual intent? Don't you see an issue there with the Canadian immigration system?
On the one hand, we are being told that it will be easier for super visa holders to apply for permanent residence, but on the other hand, we are being told that the super visa will be granted on the condition of the individual providing assurance they will return home.
Don't you think that is contradictory?
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
That's a very good question.
One consideration is to really think about how the super visa works in concert with more permanent pathways for family. I think it's important to begin to think about who the people are who could transition into a more permanent element. There certainly are contradictions in the current version of the draft.
Another consideration that's very much related is how you can apply for that super visa. My understanding is that it can only be applied for outside of the country. I think that if the goal is to truly free up...then it's also to allow for people who may be on another type of visa or who may be in the country through the six-month allowance, which many countries have with Canada, to apply as well.
I think more thought could be offered in terms of how it relates to permanent pathways, and not just in isolation. I think that's an important consideration.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you for that answer.
I will turn to you again, Mr. Ramos. Some people are claiming that the IRCC is too demanding, as it expects a family's income not to fluctuate from one year to another and never to drop below the required minimum during recession periods. That may be problematic for some families.
How do you think the requirements for producing reports created by clauses 4 and 5 of Bill C-242 resolve this issue?
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
I think it's very hard to think in terms of the implications at different points of implementation.
Certainly in a recession, newcomers face unique obstacles and so would their family, but I think it is important for us to also not be short-sighted and only look at the immediate. It's important to recognize that this is a potential long-term investment.
This is a stopgap that potentially can help a lot of families and can help smaller regions maintain their newcomers, if it means that families are more likely to stay in regions that have high out-migration and if it's a policy that helps curb the current system for permanent sponsorship. That permanent sponsorship, I believe, has about 25,000 slots for parents and grandparents at this point, which is tiny when you contrast that against the 400,000 newcomers we admit a year and you compound that over many years.
It's important for us to not only look at the immediate points of recession or ups and downturns in an economy that might be a year or two, but also to think of what it means if we keep families in regions for the long term and invest in them. It's really their children and their grandchildren who will be the true benefit to Canada and Quebec.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Ramos, in 2016, a lawyer pointed out to the committee that it was difficult for widows to come here with a super visa, as visa officers were less likely to be convinced that parents and grandparents will leave after the authorized period of stay. That lawyer recommended removing the obligation to leave.
Considering that the bill we are discussing extends the authorized period of stay to five years, what do you think will be the impacts on super visa applicants who are already widowed or other vulnerable individuals?
I have 30 seconds left.
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
It's too difficult a question to answer in 30 seconds. I would say that this is echoing Mr. Sweetman in why thorough investigation before implementation is needed to work out some of these considerations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.
Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.
The super visa program, of course, was a program brought about by the previous administration as a means to allow for parents and grandparents to reunite, because they could not get permanent resident status. That's the reality. The program is set up in such a way so that, ostensibly, Canada would not be deemed to have to pay for or support these parents and grandparents, hence the barriers that exist, whether they be the income barrier or the insurance requirements, which are extremely onerous for a lot of families. That is the reality.
Mr. Seeback here is trying to address some of those shortfalls with his bill to make it a little bit more palatable, I guess, for parents and grandparents and more affordable for them to be able to utilize the stream to come to Canada to be reunited with their loved ones. It is not without problems, but that being said, a lot people welcome this opportunity because otherwise they would not have any opportunity at all to reunite with their loved ones.
From that perspective, one thing I have taken issue with for a very long time now is this. Despite many requests in previous CIMM committees.... We've asked the government to evaluate and conduct research into the contributions of parents and grandparents beyond the dollar figure, such as their contributions in terms of cultural, social support and even economic support here in Canada. They come as visitors, they spend money here and they do all kinds of things here that, I would argue, contribute to our economy.
From that perspective, I guess my first question is to Mr. Ramos.
What are your thoughts on that in terms of that calculation and those contributions that are not accounted for? Should the government be undertaking this work to make sure that we account for that and that it is an offset towards the costs that are being applied to them in this super visa program?
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
In short, yes, there is a deep need for research on this front. I think we often tend to focus on economic issues. On that front, we can do some investigation using the data linked to the IMDB data, but there isn't another longitudinal study of immigrants, such as the one that I used in 2012, that offers some insights.
The qualitative research that's out there, done by academics, shows that there is much mental health support, language support, child care support and elder care support. The work we did showed some evidence of care and support, but it didn't break it down. In this sense, it's really important to do this.
One of the obstacles researchers face, however, is that most of the datasets are based on individual newcomers, rather than thinking about newcomers as family units. It makes it not only difficult to try to see what the relationship is to parents and grandparents, but also to see the relationship with the children of newcomers who are here in Canada. In my view, it would be good to invest in better research into families as a whole, both for newcomers and for those who are Canadian by birth as well.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you for that response.
This question was put to officials when they were before the committee about needing to conduct that research. Their response generally centred around how difficult it is, so they haven't done it. Is that a lame excuse?
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
I think it's a legitimate excuse but, at the same time, it will always be an excuse unless investments are made to build the data to do that research.
From a pragmatic sense, can it be done quickly tomorrow? No. There are the obstacles that I mentioned. However, is it something worth investing in if we're going to be attracting 400,000 newcomers a year and thinking holistically about different interventions, rather than in the short term? Yes. This is an investment that's worth making.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
This study was done in the 2015 term. This was asked of the government five or six years ago now. I'm pretty sure that before my time, this was requested of the government and it still that hasn't been done. It's fair enough to say that successive governments have not undertaken this work.
As long as the idea is that it's difficult to achieve so we're not going to do it, as long as that perspective persists, we will never get the data and we will always be walking around in a circle with respect to that. I don't know how many more years will have to pass before we do the work that is so necessary.
My final question for you, Mr. Ramos, is this. Can you tell us if it is possible for this work to be done?
Professor, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Western University, As an Individual
It is certainly possible for the work to be done. I think there is some stuff that can be done more immediately, looking at some of the economic impacts and some of the high-level caring impacts, as was done in the research we published in 2012. However, I think that it is a matter of investing in looking at holistic measures and well-being and, as the pandemic has shown us, the intersections that exist across different dimensions of society.
It's time for us to stop looking at just the economic factors of migration and start looking at the other dimensions as well.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
I'd like to turn to Mr. Sweetman for a minute with respect to insurance coverage.
You spoke about insurance coverage by providers outside of the country, but there is a question to be asked about insurance potentially being provided by the provinces. That is to say, for the parent or grandparent to purchase insurance coverage with the respective province or territory....
My time is up. I guess I'll have to come back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Ms. Kwan, your time is up.
We will now go back to Mr. Seeback.
You have five minutes. Please begin.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Sweetman, first of all, I'll give you the opportunity to answer Ms. Kwan's question.
Prof. Arthur Sweetman
I think that's an interesting possibility. The one thing I would say is that it's usually the case that someone says what she said at a committee like this, which is that the provinces should do it. If you want to offer that insurance, the federal government could equally offer that insurance. In fact, in many ways, it would be more natural and easier, and perhaps have fewer administrative costs, if the federal government offered the insurance, instead of the province.
If I can go a bit beyond that, the real question with the super visa is who pays for health care. If someone comes under the parent and grandparent scheme, all of Canada pays for health care. Under the super visa, the sponsoring family and the parents and grandparents themselves pay for health care. It doesn't need to be 0:1. It could be somewhere in between. There are other options we could consider as a society, somewhere in-between the government paying 100% or the government paying 0%.
There is a range of things we could think about. I'm not sure that we've been very creative.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thanks for that. I really appreciate your insights on the insurance. My goal in this is to try to find ways to make it more affordable, so I have appreciated your comments.
I want to ask you this one thing, though. The bill says, “A health insurance policy purchased from an insurance company outside Canada that is approved by the Minister”.
You were saying that, before this is proclaimed in force, they could get all this straightened out, but in fact they wouldn't have to do it before it was proclaimed in force. If it's not approved by the minister, they could approve nothing, or they could take six months after it's proclaimed or they could take two years to make sure that they got it right.
Would you agree with that?
